And no, I do *NOT* trust them.

If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/

Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.

-- 
The Boss

The Boss wrote:
> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
> 
> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
> 
> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
> 
> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
> 

It's interesting that Peter Hain has been employing his mother to do 
some secretarial work. Has anyone thought to ask her about the £103,000?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
news:39gpj.29958$801.24785@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The Boss wrote:
>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>
>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>>
>> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>>
>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>>
>
> It's interesting that Peter Hain has been employing his mother to do some 
> secretarial work. Has anyone thought to ask her about the £103,000?

Don't be so ageist, even Peter Hain hasn't blamed his 80 year old mum 
explicitly for the "the embarrassment caused by poor administration" and 
forgetting to declare major donations - no it is entirely his fault.

At least he is unlikely to get in to the same sort of trouble as Prescott!

"The Boss"  wrote in message 
news:PH5pj.682$XI.130@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>
> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>
> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>
> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>
> -- 
> The Boss
I have to agree. Bearing in mind the rigorous auditing of expenses elsewhere 
in the public sector (entirely justified - that's my money they're spending) 
MP's cannot be allowed to operate to a lower standard.

Andrew McGee

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
> news:39gpj.29958$801.24785@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> The Boss wrote:
>>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>>
>>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>>>
>>> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>>>
>>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>>>
>> It's interesting that Peter Hain has been employing his mother to do some 
>> secretarial work. Has anyone thought to ask her about the £103,000?
> 
> Don't be so ageist, even Peter Hain hasn't blamed his 80 year old mum 
> explicitly for the "the embarrassment caused by poor administration" and 
> forgetting to declare major donations - no it is entirely his fault.
> 
> At least he is unlikely to get in to the same sort of trouble as Prescott! 
> 
> 
What on earth do you mean by: "Don't be so ageist...". The comment 
merely brought together several threads, the first about MPs' expenses 
and the second about employment of family members. There has been much 
made of the age of the Tory MPs' children. Have you had a similar attack 
of the vapours about this, or is it just selective indignation of the 
socialist intellectual variety where you feel the need to "stand firm" 
with one of your own?

Interesting comment in one of today's papers:

"As the panic reached fever pitch, backbenchers almost came to blows in 
the Commons' tea room. Labour members turned on John Mann, the Labour MP 
for Bassetlaw who wrote to the Electoral Commission complaining about 
irregularities in Tory funding a few weeks ago.

Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone too 
far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting 
angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you 
started?"

As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's 
damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for anybody. 
It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and 
disengagement."

The call from the Labour ranks too was for "greater transparency". But 
no one came forward with specific proposals to name all staff and their 
salaries. Only the Liberal Democrats are preparing to publish a list of 
their MPs' staff."

Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, blocked publication of an official 
list in 2006 and his spokesman said that he had "no intention" of 
reversing the decision."

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On 2 Feb, 21:58, "The Boss"  wrote:
> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>
> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:

Up in Scotland we can see all our MSP's expenses claims. Still doesn't
stop them being a bunch of crooks and tossers, alas.

Ian

"Andrew McGee"  wrote in message 
news:rcadnaqie42IhTvanZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "The Boss"  wrote in message 
> news:PH5pj.682$XI.130@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>
>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>>
>> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>>
>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>>
>> -- 
>> The Boss
> I have to agree. Bearing in mind the rigorous auditing of expenses 
> elsewhere in the public sector (entirely justified - that's my money 
> they're spending) MP's cannot be allowed to operate to a lower standard.

Maybe it's because MPs *are* of a lower standard.

-- 
The Boss

The Boss wrote:
> "Andrew McGee"  wrote in message 
> news:rcadnaqie42IhTvanZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "The Boss"  wrote in message 
>> news:PH5pj.682$XI.130@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>>
>>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>>>
>>> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>>>
>>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> The Boss
>> I have to agree. Bearing in mind the rigorous auditing of expenses 
>> elsewhere in the public sector (entirely justified - that's my money 
>> they're spending) MP's cannot be allowed to operate to a lower standard.
> 
> Maybe it's because MPs *are* of a lower standard.
> 
Haha.

I feel sorry for the poor sod. This has been a nice perk for years and 
basically was considered part of an MPs pay and conditions- they could 
take on members of their family and pay them very generously for not a 
lot. His only mistake was not providing for a plausible explanation for 
the money, should one have ever been asked for.

IIUC, MPs allowable expenses were allowed to grow hugely at a time of 
National Pay Restraint - when it wasn't politically expedient to give 
themselves big salary increases. Of course, later on they did give 
themselves those big increases *and* increased the allowances at a rate 
well above inflation too.

What could be done is to scrap most of the allowances and give MPs the 
same arrangements as senior service personnel who have to do a tour of 
duty in London, as regards accomodation and family travel. Plus allocate 
them a civil service HEO in London and in their constituency.

--
Sue

Ian  wrote:

>On 2 Feb, 21:58, "The Boss"  wrote:
>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>
>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>
>Up in Scotland we can see all our MSP's expenses claims. Still doesn't
>stop them being a bunch of crooks and tossers, alas.

Makes me laugh, the Scots hated being governed by a bunch of crooks and
tossers in Westminster (as we all do) so they spend a shed load of money on
devolution to get their own bunch of crooks and tossers. 

--

nospam wrote:
> Ian  wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Feb, 21:58, "The Boss"  wrote:
>>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>>
>>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>> Up in Scotland we can see all our MSP's expenses claims. Still doesn't
>> stop them being a bunch of crooks and tossers, alas.
> 
> Makes me laugh, the Scots hated being governed by a bunch of crooks and
> tossers in Westminster (as we all do) so they spend a shed load of money on
> devolution to get their own bunch of crooks and tossers. 
> 
Thay aren't so daft - they spend a shed load of English taxpayers 
money.. not their own.

-- 
Sue

On 3 Feb, 20:37, ®i©ardo  wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > "®i©ardo"  wrote in message
> >news:39gpj.29958$801.24785@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> The Boss wrote:
> >>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>
> >>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:> >>>www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-..> >>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>
> >> It's interesting that Peter Hain has been employing his mother to do some
> >> secretarial work. Has anyone thought to ask her about the £103,000?
>
> > Don't be so ageist, even Peter Hain hasn't blamed his 80 year old mum
> > explicitly for the "the embarrassment caused by poor administration" and> > forgetting to declare major donations - no it is entirely his fault.
>
> > At least he is unlikely to get in to the same sort of trouble as Prescott!
>
> What on earth do you mean by: "Don't be so ageist...". The comment
> merely brought together several threads, the first about MPs' expenses
> and the second about employment of family members. There has been much
> made of the age of the Tory MPs' children. Have you had a similar attack
> of the vapours about this, or is it just selective indignation of the
> socialist intellectual variety where you feel the need to "stand firm"
> with one of your own?
>
> Interesting comment in one of today's papers:
>
> "As the panic reached fever pitch, backbenchers almost came to blows in
> the Commons' tea room. Labour members turned on John Mann, the Labour MP
> for Bassetlaw who wrote to the Electoral Commission complaining about
> irregularities in Tory funding a few weeks ago.
>
> Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone too
> far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting
> angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you
> started?"
>
> As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's
> damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for anybody.
> It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and
> disengagement."

FFS what planet has he been living on, where people laud their MPs,
and queue up to take part in the political process ?

On 3 Feb, 19:37, "Andrew McGee"  wrote:
> "The Boss"  wrote in message
>
> news:PH5pj.682$XI.130@text.news.virginmedia.com...> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>
> > If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>
> >www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-...
>
> > Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>
> > --
> > The Boss
>
> I have to agree. Bearing in mind the rigorous auditing of expenses elsewhere
> in the public sector (entirely justified - that's my money they're spending)
> MP's cannot be allowed to operate to a lower standard.

When the Hain scanadal was reverbarating, on R4 they asked the former
head of the publis standards committee if the penalies weren't too
harsh for "an oversight", it was then I remembered how sympathetic
HMRC are when it comes to late filings, and genuine istakes, so
decided he probably had been treated to harshly .......

That's sarcasm, btw

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:cc6dae92-512d-411b-8e62-60139c2549b9@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Feb, 20:37, ®i©ardo  wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
<snip>
>> Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone too
>> far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting
>> angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you
>> started?"
>>
>> As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's
>> damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for anybody.
>> It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and
>> disengagement."

> FFS what planet has he been living on, where people laud their MPs,
> and queue up to take part in the political process ?

I think it's a fine aspiration, but it's annoying that some politicians 
don't recognise they are the ones at fault, not the people who expose their 
gravy trains or the public who get annoyed about it.

TD wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message 
> news:cc6dae92-512d-411b-8e62-60139c2549b9@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Feb, 20:37, ®i©ardo  wrote:
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone too
>>> far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting
>>> angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you
>>> started?"
>>>
>>> As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's
>>> damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for anybody.
>>> It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and
>>> disengagement."
> 
>> FFS what planet has he been living on, where people laud their MPs,
>> and queue up to take part in the political process ?
> 
> I think it's a fine aspiration, but it's annoying that some politicians 
> don't recognise they are the ones at fault, not the people who expose their 
> gravy trains or the public who get annoyed about it.
> 
> 
...and the great British public, of course, are all purer than...

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"®i©ardo"  wrote in message
news:39gpj.29958$801.24785@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The Boss wrote:
>> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>>
>> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry
>> about...:
>>
>> www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/02/list-of-expenses-mps-can-claim-for-revealed-today-89520-20306450/
>>
>> Gives a fairly detailed overview of MPs expenses.
>>
>
> It's interesting that Peter Hain has been employing his mother to do
> some secretarial work. Has anyone thought to ask her about the
> £103,000?
>
> -- 
> Moving things in still pictures!



    I wonder if the MP for Macclesfield has been employing his wife and
if the MP for Congleton has been employing her husband.  If they've not
it's surely only because it didn't occur to them that they might do so.

-- 
DB.

"®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
news:deKpj.42880$801.26253@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> TD wrote:
>> "Jethro"  wrote in message 
>> news:cc6dae92-512d-411b-8e62-60139c2549b9@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 3 Feb, 20:37, ®i©ardo  wrote:
>>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone 
>>>> too
>>>> far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting
>>>> angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you
>>>> started?"
>>>>
>>>> As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's
>>>> damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for 
>>>> anybody.
>>>> It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and
>>>> disengagement."
>>
>>> FFS what planet has he been living on, where people laud their MPs,
>>> and queue up to take part in the political process ?
>>
>> I think it's a fine aspiration, but it's annoying that some politicians 
>> don't recognise they are the ones at fault, not the people who expose 
>> their gravy trains or the public who get annoyed about it.
>>
>>
> ...and the great British public, of course, are all purer than...
>
> -- 
> Moving things in still pictures!

Not sure what your point is - if it's about greenhouses or logs embedded in 
occular organs, I don't understand why it is pertinent.

On 4 Feb, 13:01, nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
> Ian  wrote:
> >On 2 Feb, 21:58, "The Boss"  wrote:
> >> And no, I do *NOT* trust them.
>
> >> If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about...:
>
> >Up in Scotland we can see all our MSP's expenses claims. Still doesn't
> >stop them being a bunch of crooks and tossers, alas.
>
> Makes me laugh, the Scots hated being governed by a bunch of crooks and
> tossers in Westminster (as we all do) so they spend a shed load of money on
> devolution to get their own bunch of crooks and tossers.

To paraphrase FDR (allegedly) on Somoza:

They may be son-of-a-bitches, but they're OUR son-of-a-bitches.

Ian

TD wrote:
> "®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
> news:deKpj.42880$801.26253@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> TD wrote:
>>> "Jethro"  wrote in message 
>>> news:cc6dae92-512d-411b-8e62-60139c2549b9@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 3 Feb, 20:37, ®i©ardo  wrote:
>>>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Mr Mann's colleagues were furious that the funding row had now "gone 
>>>>> too
>>>>> far". They crowded around him as he queued for refreshments shouting
>>>>> angrily, observers said. The accusation was "what on earth have you
>>>>> started?"
>>>>>
>>>>> As one Labour MP said: "This isn't just hurting the Tories. It's
>>>>> damaging all of us, politics in general, and that's no good for 
>>>>> anybody.
>>>>> It will mean people just condemn us all and we end up with apathy and
>>>>> disengagement."
>>>> FFS what planet has he been living on, where people laud their MPs,
>>>> and queue up to take part in the political process ?
>>> I think it's a fine aspiration, but it's annoying that some politicians 
>>> don't recognise they are the ones at fault, not the people who expose 
>>> their gravy trains or the public who get annoyed about it.
>>>
>>>
>> ...and the great British public, of course, are all purer than...
>>
>> -- 
>> Moving things in still pictures!
> 
> Not sure what your point is - if it's about greenhouses or logs embedded in 
> occular organs, I don't understand why it is pertinent.
> 
> 
That's quite understandable.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!